Hacker News Reader

Comment by smnrchrds | Hacker News Reader

Reminds me of Henry Ford:

> The $5-a-day rate was about half pay and half bonus. The bonus came with character requirements and was enforced by the Socialization Organization. This was a committee that would visit the employees' homes to ensure that they were doing things the "American way." They were supposed to avoid social ills such as gambling and drinking. They were to learn English, and many (primarily the recent immigrants) had to attend classes to become "Americanized." Women were not eligible for the bonus unless they were single and supporting the family. Also, men were not eligible if their wives worked outside the home.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/03/04/the-stor...

View on HN

And the Pullman company famous for its luxury railroad cars, whose paternalistic policies in the “model town” established outside Chicago to house its workers led directly to one of the great industrial crises in American history, the Pullman strike of 1894: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_Strike

From the Wikipedia article you reference: "When his company laid off workers and lowered wages, it did not reduce rents, and the workers called for a strike."

Was it the paternalistic policies or economic factors that caused the strike?

Both. The economic conditions of 1894 were the precipitating cause. The paternalistic policies were a contributing cause.

Pullman, Illinois was the definition of a company town.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/business-july-dec01-lab...

The rent problem was the straw that broke the camel's back, but the paternalism was what inclined the workers to respond to it so forcefully. The workers in Pullman were already frustrated with the company, and then the rents-and-wages issue pushed the situation over the edge.

It's not that much different than insurance companies and a lot of employers paying people to go to the gym.

It's one thing if an employer kicks $250 my way for joining the wellness program. It's entirely different when half of my compensation or even my job itself depends on it.

It's already troublesome when the employer gets their hands on employees' health information. It's none of their business, and the 250 dollars are just pocket change. You have to give it to U-Haul: you know where you stand, if you smoke or vape you can't work there, and if you don't they won't spy on you beyond drug and nicotine testing.

I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people.

If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for.

If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information.

I think you and the person you're replying to are in agreement; what they very likely meant by "health is none of an employer's business" is that the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.

>the act of insuring people should not be part of an employer's business.

It shouldn't be (IMO), but it currently is, and there's no sign that's going to change soon. The American people have consistently voted to keep things the way they are, and resisted attempts at decoupling employment from health insurance. Therefore, since the American people have saddled employers with this responsibility, I feel the employers have every right to your health information.

By the same rationale, if taxpayers are expected to subsidize my health insurance costs, shouldn't they have access to my health information too?

Britain demonstrates how it's done: what is paid for from public funds is decided by an expert committee. It is no one's business what any individual is suffering from, and it doesn't matter, what counts is aggregate demand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Institute_for_Health_...

"I disagree; I think it IS their business. Healthier employees cost less to insure, and health insurance is a large cost of employing people."

Health information is private for very good reasons. Employers who don't understand medicine have no business gaining access to our medical records, making decisions, and potentially discriminating based on their ignorant assumptions about employee health statues and problems.

"If the American people don't like this, then they need to vote for health insurance to be totally separate from employment. But Americans won't do that, because that's "socialism". So we're getting exactly what we've voted for."

This "we" business is a very lazy argument. There are large numbers of people who have been against this system. "WE" are not getting what "we" voted for, without even considering that we haven't really had the opportunity to vote for it in the first place.

"If employers are expected to subsidize your health insurance costs, they have every right to your health information."

This subsidization is a pooled, monetary component of employee compensation. While population-based behaviors will impact the overall insurance cost, individaul behaviors aren't likely to. But since you're so bent on giving employers actionable information about worker lifestyle choices, perhaps you should focus on easy choices that impact ability to work like prescription drug use like Ambien, guys who stay up late to watch sports, or anyone who stays up late to watch late shows, drinking too much, eating too much, eating an unhealthy diet (which depends on who you ask of course) . . .

By the way: given that employer-mediated health insurance is part of the compensation package, if this mediation was no longer connected with employment, do you just assume that the employer keeps the money that was previously part of an employee's earnings? Or do employees get the compensation that was bargained for? Or is it sent to the government for the provision of universal healthcare? Either way, the employer is paying a wage for services rendered.

>This "we" business is a very lazy argument. There are large numbers of people who have been against this system.

It's not lazy at all; it's absolutely true. Those "large numbers" haven't been enough to change anything. If the American people really wanted this situation fixed, it would be, but they don't, so it isn't.

>"WE" are not getting what "we" voted for, without even considering that we haven't really had the opportunity to vote for it in the first place."

Bullshit. Health insurance has been a major campaign platform for some time now. Have you forgotten Obamacare and what a big issue that was? And ever since then, the GOP has been campaigning on the idea of rescinding it, while the Democrats have campaigned on either keeping it intact or going to single-payer or some other scheme in between. The voters have absolutely had the opportunity to vote for it; that's what they've been doing for at least 15 years now.

> perhaps you should focus on easy choices that impact ability to work like prescription drug use like Ambien, guys who stay up late to watch sports, or anyone who stays up late to watch late shows, drinking too much, eating too much, eating an unhealthy diet (which depends on who you ask of course) . . .

That's all perfectly fine with me. Employers have all kinds of rights to police employee behavior and discriminate against them as long as it's not a "protected class". Why should employers be forced to pay higher insurance costs for unhealthy employees? And again, if you don't like it, there's the voting booth, but most Americans don't want to change this so good luck with that.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com